Prisons

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that, having been considered unsuitable several years previously for two behaviour-related courses in prison, it had now been decided that he should attend them. He considered that this might hold up his progression to more open conditions (ie to less secure prison conditions). He felt that this would not have been a concern had the decision about the need for the courses been taken some years earlier. We explained to him that decisions about participation on courses are for the Scottish Prison Service (SPS), not this office. Our role was, therefore, solely to consider whether they had followed their normal processes correctly in reaching their decision.

From similar complaints, we were aware that a new assessment process for courses (generic assessment) had been introduced throughout the SPS, and it had been decided that all prisoners should be assessed under this to establish whether any earlier decisions about the need for courses should be changed. The SPS confirmed that this was why, after some years, Mr C's decision had been reviewed and changed. In other words, they had taken action in line with their normal process and there were no grounds for us to uphold the complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that he was unable to purchase books from a supplier of his choice. We explained to Mr C that the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) were entitled to make decisions such as this, and that our only role was to consider if there had been maladministration in the way they had taken this decision.

Our investigation found that the decision had been taken for security reasons, and applied to all prisoners in the prison. We were, therefore, satisfied that the decision was taken after careful consideration of relevant factors, namely the safety and security of the prison. We also noted that, since Mr C's complaint, SPS had introduced a tighter policy across all prisons for prisoners' receipt of books. This meant that, regardless of the situation at the time of his complaint, he would no longer have been able to obtain the books he wanted.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained to the prison about a delay in receiving correspondence from his solicitor. The complaint was resolved to his satisfaction, but he was unhappy with the time taken to respond. The prison rules say that, at stage one, a manager should offer to discuss the complaint within 48 hours of receipt, and respond within five days. They also say that the governor should issue a stage two response within 20 working days. Our investigation found that none of these timescales were adhered to in Mr C's case and he was not sent a holding letter to explain the delay.

Mr C also complained that he was not told about or invited to the complaint hearing at stage two, despite having indicated his wish to attend. The prison rules allow for prisoners to attend hearings and make representations if they so wish. We noted that Mr C had said on his complaint form that he wanted to attend the hearing. He was not noted as being at the hearing and, in the absence of any evidence that an invitation was issued and declined, we concluded that the prison had failed to facilitate his request. In the circumstances, we upheld this complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that the Scottish Prison Service:

• remind staff to ensure that they respond to complaints within the relevant timescales set out in Rules 122-124; and
• remind staff to ensure that, where prisoners ask to attend an internal complaints committee hearing, arrangements are made to facilitate this, as per Rule 123(5)(a).

Summary

Mr C applied for a vacancy in a prison workshop. He complained that the prison unreasonably rejected his application. The prison advised Mr C that there was a risk to his safety if they allowed him to participate in the workshop due to intelligence (adverse information obtained by the Scottish Prison Service that affects an individual prisoner) they had received. Mr C told us that he was allowed to participate in other activities where there were no restrictions, such as in the exercise yard.

Our investigation found that under Rule 82 (1) of the Prisons and Young Offenders Institution (Scotland) Rules 2011, every prisoner is required to work, subject to certain provisions. Rule 82(2)(b) states that the governor of the prison also has the discretion to excuse a prisoner from work on any other ground. As there was intelligence held to support the governor's decision, we did not consider that the prison acted unreasonably in not allowing Mr C to participate in the workshop. During the course of our enquiries the prison also told us that Mr C was not allowed to participate in two other workshops. They provided evidence showing the reasons for this. We noted that while Rule 84(1) says that the governor must provide purposeful activities for prisoners, sub-section (b) says that this is so far as reasonably practicable and takes into account the requirements of the operation and maintenance of the prison.

We concluded that there was no evidence that the prison failed to follow their processes, and that the governor used his discretion in reviewing the intelligence and deciding what should happen, as he was entitled to do.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he was unhappy with the prison's decision to remove his community access.

The prison took the decision to remove Mr C's community access because they had received intelligence (adverse information obtained by SPS that affects an individual prisoner) about him. Our investigation satisfied us that the prison had used their judgement in taking the decision to remove Mr C's community access. In doing so, they took a discretionary decision (a decision that they were entitled to make). We cannot question such a decision unless there is evidence of poor administration in taking it. As this was a decision that the prison were entitled to take, and there was no evidence of anything wrong in the way it was made, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the prison inappropriately failed to hold sub-group meetings as agreed by the risk management team (RMT). The purpose of those meetings was to obtain consistent information from Mr C in relation to the circumstances of his offence. Mr C believed this was holding him back from progressing to less secure prison conditions.

Our investigation found that the RMT discussed Mr C's case in March 2012 and agreed that he would be reviewed monthly by a sub-group for a period of not less than four months. The prison confirmed that sub-group meetings were held to discuss Mr C in June, September and November. Because of that, we were satisfied the prison held the relevant sub-group meetings and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained to the prison about a risk management team (RMT) meeting that was held to discuss his management in prison. Mr C complained that he was inappropriately denied the opportunity to submit representations to or attend the meeting. He also complained that he was unreasonably denied a copy of the minute (note) of the meeting and the prison was inappropriately monitoring his correspondence.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found nothing in the relevant Scottish Prison Service (SPS) guidance to suggest that a prisoner is entitled to attend such a meeting. Rather, the guidance says that an appropriate member of staff will attend the meeting, and that this individual is responsible for ensuring that the prisoner is told about it. In addition, the guidance confirms that a prisoner will only be entitled to make written representation when their case has been referred to the RMT for progression purposes (progression is when a prisoner moves through the prison system to less supervised conditions). Mr C was not referred for that purpose and, so was not entitled to make written representations. We noted that, following Mr C's complaint, he was provided with a copy of the final RMT minute.

In relation to Mr C's complaint about his correspondence being monitored, the prison confirmed that steps were being taken to manage his correspondence with SPS more appropriately. The evidence suggested that Mr C was bypassing relevant members of staff and processes when raising issues and complaints. Because of that, staff were not able to deal with matters properly and were not being given the chance to try to resolve problems. The prison had, therefore, put in place an arrangement whereby Mr C's SPS correspondence would be managed more effectively to ensure that the issues he raised were passed to the relevant members of staff to deal with. In deciding this, the prison took a discretionary decision (a decision that they were entitled to make). We cannot question such a decision unless there is evidence of poor administration in taking it, and, in Mr C's case, there was not.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that the programmes case management board (PCMB) inappropriately considered historical information relating to his offending behaviour before deciding that he should participate in the violence prevention programme and the substance related offending behaviour programme. The PCMB are responsible for deciding what programmes individual prisoners should participate in.

In investigating this complaint, we reviewed all the information considered by the PCMB before they reached their decision. Before the PCMB will consider what programmes a prisoner should participate in, the prisoner is first generically assessed. We also reviewed the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) generic assessment guidance manual, which provides guidance to prison staff involved in the assessment process.

We did not uphold Mr C's complaints. In deciding that he should participate in these programmes, the PCMB took a discretionary decision (a decision that they were entitled to make). We cannot question such a decision unless there is evidence of poor administration in taking it. Having reviewed all of the evidence available in Mr C's case, we were satisfied that the information the PCMB considered about him was appropriate and relevant. It was also clear from the information in the SPS manual that the PCMB were entitled to consider the information they did.

In addition, Mr C complained that the SPS inappropriately ignored recommendations of the parole board for England and Wales. We found that parole boards (in both England and Wales and Scotland) cannot tell the SPS how to manage a prisoner, although they can make recommendations about an individual prisoner's sentence management. The management of prisoners is the direct responsiblity of the SPS.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained that a prison officer inappropriately passed information about him to another prisoner. Mr C said that, as a result of this, he was assaulted and had to move to an alternative house block (prison accommodation). In addition, Mr C complained that he was being unreasonably denied the opportunity to participate in the substance related offending behaviour programme (SROBP). He said this was because he had been moved to a house block that did not facilitate it.

Our investigation found that the prison had conducted an exercise to try and reduce the number of prisoners who were to be kept away from other identified individuals. Mr C was noted as needing to be kept separate from another prisoner and, because of that, the prison interviewed both Mr C and the other prisoner to determine whether any issues still existed between them. The prison were unable to confirm whether or not the prison officer who conducted the interviews shared Mr C's name with the other prisoner.

The evidence available to us suggested that as a result of the prison conducting this exercise, Mr C was assaulted and had to be moved to another house block. We, therefore, accepted that the carrying out of that exercise impacted negatively on Mr C . Although we accepted the difficulties faced by the prison in trying to manage prisoners identified as requiring separation from others, such as the impact upon staff resources, the movement of prisoners and the overall security of the prison, we also recognised that conducting such an exercise carries a risk to the safety of individual prisoners. We therefore, felt it appropriate that risk assessments should take place before conducting such exercises. Although we could not determine exactly what happened in Mr C's case, we upheld his complaint and made a recommendation.

In relation to Mr C's second complaint about access to the SROBP, our investigation found that the prison had offered to transfer Mr C to a different house block or to a different prison where he could participate in the SROBP but Mr C had refused the offer. We concluded that the prison had offered Mr C alternatives to allow him to participate in the programme and, therefore, did not uphold this part of his complaint.

Recommendations

We recommended that Scottish Prison Service:

• review the current practice in place in relation to conducting the exercise referred to in this complaint with a view to assessing whether steps can be taken to minimise the risk to individual prisoners and issue appropriate guidance to staff.

Summary

Mr C, who is a prisoner, complained because he said the programmes case management board (PCMB) considered false information before deciding what programmes he should be required to participate in. Mr C identified information in the record of the PCMB meeting which he felt was incorrect.

Before we investigated Mr C's complaint, the prison acknowledged that the PCMB had incorrectly noted that Mr C had committed a number of violent offences against different members of his family. Only a couple of those offences had been committed by Mr C against family members. However, the prison advised Mr C that the PCMB outcome was not affected because he still had the same number of convictions for violent offences.

As part of our investigation, we reviewed all of the information that the PCMB considered about Mr C before reaching its decision on what programmes he should participate in. In particular, we looked at the information Mr C still felt was incorrect. We were satisfied that information considered by the PCMB was relevant and appropriate and because of that, we did not uphold Mr C's complaint.